Paid Trolls In Comments at TTAG?

Are we at The Truth About Guns so effective with our messaging that the anti-gun folks hire people to post anti-gun comments? It’s more than possible. In fact, it’s likely. Given the Democrats’ shady tactics as revealed by the Wikileaks documents, it should be considered probable in today’s world.

Hillary Clinton’s well-heeled backers have opened a new frontier in digital campaigning, one that seems to have been inspired by some of the Internet’s worst instincts. Correct the Record, a super PAC coordinating with Clinton’s campaign, is spending some $1 million to find and confront social media users who post unflattering messages about the Democratic front-runner.

Running that through the universal translator: “Correct the Record” (oh, the irony) is spending a million bucks to spread fake or misleading rebuttals online. They did (do?) this through comments and social media posts. Why? To rebut effective messages against Hillary and her past.

The Left in America decries “fake news”, yet they pay people to spread disinformation to mislead or confuse people, or to deny the obvious.

…however, using a super PAC to create a counterweight to movements that have sprung up organically is another reflection of the campaign’s awkwardness with engaging online, digital pros said.

“It is meant to appear to be coming organically from people and their social media networks in a groundswell of activism, when in fact it is highly paid and highly tactical,” said Brian Donahue, chief executive of the consulting firm Craft Media/Digital.

…”It runs the risk of being exactly what their opponents accuse them of being: a campaign that appears to be populist but is a smokescreen that is paid and brought to you by lifetime political operatives and high-level consultants.”

Mr. Brock is perhaps one of the world’s biggest hypocrites when it comes to gun rights. The Daily Caller revealed in 2013 how Brock’s company paid for the purchase of firearms that one or more staff members carried illegally as a “bodyguard” for Brock. Why did the silver-haired Brock think he needed (unlawfully) armed protection? He thought that gun owners were violent and were plotting his assassination. The Daily Caller wrote about Brock’s mental health issues:

Brock, whose struggles with mental health have seen him hospitalized in the past…

Who knows if Mr. “Struggles With Mental Health Issues” Brock is working for Bloomberg or other well-heeled hoplophobes to run a “Correct the Record”-type effort about guns. It doesn’t matter. There are no shortage of ethically-, criminally- or intellectually-challenged gun control advocates out there who might organize or participate in this type of paid disinformation campaign.

John Lott noted how Michael Bloomberg continues spending $50M a year on his Everytown family of gun control groups. Does anyone doubt for a minute that they aren’t spending money to shape public opinion in every way possible? This would including through public comments on influential platforms and social media outlets online. While our Armed Intelligentsia might have doubts about the effectiveness of such a campaign, in the eyes of Bloomberg’s people it has to be worth a shot (pun intended). After all, their expenditure of tens of millions of dollars to elect Hillary and others of her ilk netted them mostly a boatload of fail in November.

A frustrated Bloomberg is used to getting results for his multi-million dollar donations. From Newsbusters:

Between 1999 and 2015, Bloomberg gave at least $42,558,210 in campaign donations.

…Since 2012, Bloomberg has promised to spend more than $192 million through Bloomberg Philanthropies to undermine the coal industry, push for gun control legislation, and support Planned Parenthood, and force Common Core into the public schools — all goals which fall in line with his personal political agenda.

…In April, at the Bloomberg New Energy Finance Summit in New York, Bloomberg (the man) boasted, “So far, we’ve helped retire or phase out more than 230 coal plants. Last year alone, more U.S. coal capacity was taken offline or slated for retirement than in all of the 1990s … and all of the 2000s… combined!” (Bloomberg New Energy Finance is an arm of the Bloomberg empire claiming to “help clients stay on top of developments across the energy spectrum.”)

So the next time you read a person spouting anti-gun talking points or making wild claims in TTAG’s comment section consider whether or not they might be paid to do what they’re doing. The same goes for social media or other influential websites and blogs. Our busy comment section influences people and generates discussion, both within The Truth About Guns and outside of it as well. Make your voice heard.

183 Responses to Paid Trolls In Comments at TTAG?

Well that’s dangerous. Not paid trolls but suggestion that anyone who differers with the mainstream gun world must be a troll. I am certainly not one, but if I don’t toe the line, I’m sure I’ll be labeled a troll even though I have been shooting for decades longer than most of you.

But whatever. If groupthink and echo chambers are now required for the firearms lifestyle, then I guess I must be getting too old to play. I’ll just hole up in my cabin clinging to my Bible and guns while the rest of you play ape.

Just readin’ here, but your comment seems wholly uncalled for. Pointing out that there are likely paid trolls here, because that is in fact how the many heavily funded leftist groups operate, hardly equates to “suggestion that anyone who differers [sic] with the mainstream gun world must be a troll.” Adherence to mainstream thought is a marked characteristic of leftism (“groupthink”) and is absent on the right, the right being alive with vigorous debate and disagreement. Your comment, the thought behind it, is unlikely to occur a conservative.

There are trolls, and there are idiots, and we pretty much waste our time dealing with either. If you are not a troll, your “kindness and goodness” (demonstration of, as in moral superiority) is a hallmark of liberalism.

And yes, I have a perverse tendency to waste time dealing with trolls and liberals.

“…suggestion that anyone who differers with the mainstream gun world must be a troll.”

Actually, it’s a good idea.
Why?
People often decide things on feelings, not logic. That includes arguments about guns.
How many times have you seen gun spokesmen calmly list facts and laws, only to have someone scream (online
or in person/media) an emotional argument, that “wins the crowd”?

This last year, I posted on Yahoo news quite often. Sometimes, I did what we all do- calm numbers and laws.
The argument went on forever.
As an experiment, a few times, instead of letting the gun hater go first, I cast the first insult. I got personal. I used
insulting and foul language along with catchy names/phrases: “You hate poor people!’ “You want immigrants
to suffer from hate crimes!”, etc. etc.

What happened?
When I became more insulting, the conversation ended faster, and follow up comments would support me, often indicating that I “won” the discussion.

It’s a lesson our anti gunner enemies have been using for decades. “Rambo wannabe” “Child killer”, etc.
should be met with similar offensive “attack” labels and phrases.

We still have our numbers and laws to back up our arguments, but we really should demonize our enemies more.
Just like they do with us.

Yes. That is the answer. Desert the “moral high ground” and become the embodiment of gun-crazed Americans who see the world as constant, continuous, unabating war against evil. A crusade requiring every sort of firearm in order to feel safe (even if that is not actually the case). That will get you plenty of headlines, just about everywhere. What is that old TV line….? Oh yes, “I love it when a plan comes together”.

The trolls you have to be weary of here are the ones who post crazy crap, not in the vein of anti-2A screeds, but extremist statements meant to look like pro-2A-boogie-men to the left. That way they can point at us and say, “See?! We told you they were nut jobs! Just look at what their supporters are posting!” Rather than convince us, who know the truth about guns, it further entrenches their core believers who won’t do any further research on the matter at hand.

Absolutely correct, that’s exactly how radical progressive liberals troll the conservative news sites & blogs posting nut job comments in caraciture of how they perceive the right and republicans. They’re usually easy to spot. The only obvious TTAG suspect who all but disappeared in this forum over the last year or so was a certain nutty buckeye who was unusually obsessed with OC and armed insurrection. I often wondered if his absence was due to incarceration, but who knows, maybe being busy trolling news sites during the election explains his absence from TTAG. If he suddenly reappears after the election that might be a clue.

Thanks Geoff for reading the 2A posts, and my (and others) more sincere interaction with him.

I’ve had several conversations with him about what he does, and he has readily copped to having time on his hands and the desire to make POTG better at debating our actual enemies. I wish I had the time and the temperament to do what he does.

The government has been spending big money for at least 20 years on fake news and propaganda. This has been very important to the regime since Vietnam. Same reason we’re not allowed to see what goes on in the Empire’s wars abroad.

I’m pretty sure the trolls we get here do it for the pleasure of getting SOME OF YOU to rise to the bait (looking at you, pwrserge).
As such, they’re doing it wrong. A more effective paid troll will throw out something racist, anti-Semitic, or suggesting violence to see how many of us shout “hear, hear!”
Just refuse to go along with their plan and don’t waste time trying to change their minds.

Feel free to quote a single anti-civilian-gun statement from me, ever. Pro-tip: you cannot.

Meanwhile, why do you continue to serve and dispense violence for one of the most vocally anti-civilian-gun law enforcement agencies in the nation? One which feels the need to arm their traffic cops with fully automatic MP7 submachine guns, but supports bullet buttons for civilian sporting rifles. One which helped strike a quid-pro-quo with Democratic politicians to pass a suite of gun control laws in return for exempting police, ex-police and their families.

Making anti gun statements is not needed for you to fullfill hillary’s and kapo bloombergs desires. Constantly posting anti cop, and anti soldier hate filled messages makes us all look bad to the soccer moms and fence straddlers.

I would like to think that you’re paid for this. If you’re doing it on your own you are one of the most hate filled and disturbed people I’ve ever encountered.

The only other possibility I can think of, and it’s very disturbing, is you’re one of those folks that was born to a land of freedom and opportunity and is angry about it. Angry that you weren’t born in some 3rd world shithole and missed your chance to be a “freedom fighter” or some such nonsense.

Ah I see, supporting 2A requires one to be a pro-police militarist. Even though 2A was specifically written to guarantee the people the means of defense against tyranny, which would be implemented by the police or the military. Makes perfect sense.

“look bad to the soccer moms and fence straddlers”

I thought all dem libruls were supposed to be anti-cop/anti-soldier BLM anarchists. Wouldn’t criticism of the police and military make this site look *good* to them? 🙂

This must be news to you, but you having your views criticized then failing miserably to rebut said criticism does not make you a victim of trolling, regardless of the outcome of any popular vote. That just means you need to work on your left-brain skills. 🙂

Cite examples of incredulous rhetoric? What, you mean cite examples of us not believing your statements? I thought that was rather self-evident when people incredulity at your statements (some of them, not all, but frequently)

I will take that as a compliment coming from a person whose Vietnam war revisionism is based on puerile excuses and outright fabrications. 🙂

By the way, have you actually read anything written by Alinsky, Zinn or Marx, or do you just use that as a mindless pejorative? Reading opposing viewpoints is a good way to sharpen one’s own views, but that would be giving you far too much credit.

I have read them all. Hence the lumping into a block. One of there unstated goals was to form a secular religion of mindless socialist drones who look at every event through a leftist political lens. Looks like they succeeded considering the national vote. Your unwillingness to acknowledge differing viewpoints and the fact that you always respond to a post last point to your trolling, being the last to post doesn’t mean your right, it just means you have to much time on your hands. That and your about as insecure in your “facts” as a 15 year old girl. You will post again and again because you can’t help yourself. That’s why you’re a troll.

I do find it you use this particular perjorative when the only lengthy interaction I had with you was on the proper analysis of the Vietnam war: apparently, calling that event an American defeat is a Alinksy/Zinn/Marxist narrative. 🙂

I do not bother calling you a troll for your sad revisionism regarding the Vietnam war, I simply call them out as falsehoods and lies. Your need to call me a troll indicates your insecurity on your facts and beliefs, not the other way around.

Yep, I’m still waiting for something resembling logic from you. So far nothing but the stink of failure. Sigh. So much ambition with so little to show for it. Don’t forget to sprinkle in your favorite big words. I can’t believe you haven’t used your favorite word BOOTLICKER. Such an angry impotent little man.

Always fun trolling the little boy in the basement on mommy’s computer. You be strong now little Johnny. There’s a whole big world out there to save. Bwahahaha. 🙂

Silly plebs, machine guns are for government goons. But I suppose people who make a living by stealing from and harassing motorists don’t really care if only the State to allowed to wield unobtanium machine guns.

That’s a FOAF link; no names, nothing that can be checked. Posted solely to get hits. Click bait.
It doesn’t make much sense to me to put such weapons on motors; how can they be secured?
K9 units? Handle the weapon and dog at the same time? Makes no sense at all.
Now, if supervisors were issued the weapons, I might buy it. But as is, the link is nothing but a poor attempt to spread fear of LEOs.

You think they’d still pay me if I said ridiculous things here on one account and then came back to this one to refute my own erroneous claims? That would be sweet! We could all make some side money from the bad guys while debunking their lies.

Oh, I disagree. I’d much rather the current trollscape than something more refined, reasonable and less vitriolic. That might actually convince someone … or, perhaps a better plan, just sow some seeds of doubt among the AI.

No, much better to have what is obviously weapons-grade bolognium. That is simply a waste of money for Hillberg & Co..

It is simply not possible that Russia, even if they were, involved in hacking our election, did more to damage the credibility of the process than Hillary, the DNC, the Clinton Foundation and the fake Debates. They real reason she failed was he wouldn’t hold still while she tried to Bork him.

President Obama was interviewed a few nights back on the Daily show. He said that there is NO evidence of any hacking of voting machines by the Russians. The only hacking was of the DNC and the posting of e-mails, which hack was traced to two Russian individuals who have some nebulous relationship to the Russian government, whether as former employees or outside subcontractors. the hack would have been entirely ineffective if the DNC had been run above-board, which the e-mails showed it was not, but that it was instead devoted to protecting the status quo. Otherwise, the Russians simply engaged their large troll army to post various disinformation about Clinton in an attempt to influence voters. Which is not terribly unusual. They’ve been at it since the end of the Second World War–as have we. Not something to write home about. [In fact, both of us have engaged in both undermining various regimes and direct interventions to effectuate regime changes. Because we can.] So the Dems shouldn’t get all hypocritical and upset about what they’ve been doing all along.

Building upon Mark N.’s comment, there are four additional compelling reasons why people rejected Hillary — all of which have nothing to do with any cyber attacks:
(1) People wanted conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice nominations.
(2) People liked the fact that no one owned Trump.
(3) People despised Hillary’s use of a private e-mail server in her home and saw it as gross incompetence.
(4) People despised the illegal activities in Hillary’s campaign — which they learned through Project Veritas videos.

By the way, I don’t believe you’re a troll, paid or otherwise. To oversimplify, perhaps, your comments represent the logical endpoint of an objective analysis of what our failed experiment in self-government has come to, especially with how those in power use their armed agents (police and military) in ways that bolster their authoritarianism and belief systems, and specifically to suppress any competition from those they consider their subjects (such as me and it appears you).

I totally agree. One can be in total support of the 2nd Amendment without constantly assuming, and yelling, that those with other views are anti-American, There is no longer any reasonableness ANYWHERE. Anyone with half a brain who attempts to think for themselves will realize that the propaganda is spewed from both sides. I feel sorry for any paranoid imbecile who thinks those who shares his views are ALWAYS telling the truth, and that anyone who holds a contrary view is ALWAYS lying. Seriously, start using your brain. Reasonable people can disagree.

Ah…someone who doesn’t support the enumerated rights as listed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is by definition “Anti American”. It is not unreasonable to assume it and to not do so constantly would make one inconsistent, fickle and illogical.

I would also suggest that there is plenty of reason around and I find it is especially plentiful here. It is not however found among Left Wing hypocrites who believe that nobody should have a gun except those who assigned to enforce their agendas and that using force to accomplish that goal is justifiable.

Paid shilling is nothing new in the online universe. Out of all the anti-gun people I know (and I know a lot of them since I live in South Florida), only one has chosen to waste his time trolling pro-gun groups via social media. And even he doesn’t do it often. Most people, period, don’t have the time to troll effectively.

Correct The Record is a variant of what social media experts call “influencers”. You know the deal…these social media superstars who get paid just to post. PewDePie, Smosh, YesJulz, pick a Kardashian, etc…

Correct the Record just creates viable “influencer” personalities out of whole cloth and sets them loose on behalf of their chosen cause.

That being said, people are starting to see through the bullshit. The whole explosion of the term “fake news” has helped – the irony is that it’s backfiring because it’s causing MSM outlets to suffer. People prefer organic opinions and “influencers” have a hard time simulating that.

Without real evidence, I am inclined to believe that they’re just idiots…. even if their motivations are ambiguous. They don’t serve much purpose going to a place where they know everyone is strongly pro gun and already decided to post arguments they know nobody here will agree with… I dunno. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. I don’t believe anything without proof. It saves from having witch hunts.

If they’re paying trolls to come to places like TTAG and post anti-gun stuff, they’re wasting their money. Who are they going to convince with that crap here? They might be paying people to post shit on Facebook or Twitter, where there might be some potential return on the investment, but at TTAG, it would be flushing money down the toilet.

We do, however, have a couple of trolls here who post ostensibly “pro-gun” comments peppered with violence and racism. Those are probably anti-gun shills trying to make the pro-2A side look like shithead stereotypes, but I suspect they’re doing it for the love of the game, not money.

Mental health issues are no joke and I hope Mr. Brock gets the help he needs. I wonder how large a percentage of liberals suffer from the same conditions? It would make sense given the escape from reality and rational thought that liberal ideology provides.

The Podesta leaks and the Anonymous hack indicate that Brock is the asshole who somehow came into possession of some version of FoxACID and was using it in an attempt to dox online Trump supporters in 4chan, 8chan, and Reddit so that they could be harassed online and threatened IRL.

He’s a jerkoff and he needs to pay a hefty price for such transgressions. I don’t know if what he was doing there was illegal, as it may be a grey area of the law when it comes to intelligence, but it’s certainly dangerous and unsavory.

Sure I knew it’s been going on for years even tangled with one who used multiple identities while I was advancing pro-2nd Amendment policies and posting violent crime articles that could’ve ended differently on Piers Morgan’s Facebook page but hell to be paid to “trigger” Liberals, THAT’S gotta be THE “bomb”.

Don’t flatter yourself, TTAG. I doubt Hillary, the DNC, or most of the coastal liberal set even know about this place. It’s a popular blog among those ‘in the know,’ but is obscure enough that its articles are never cited by news aggregators (thank God; can you imagine the shitstorm this publicly-accessible loosely-moderated comments section would be if it got linked to Yahoo or Drudge?)

All trolling around here is either straight (provoking a response, i.e. MoreDeadSoldiers or Sexual Tyrannosaurus), double agent (posting outrageous material to slander the group or incite others to post outrageous statements, i.e. Joe R. pwrserge), or high-order agents (people playing troll head games so complicated they now reside entirely in their own rectum). On the off-chance that the posters I’ve mentioned aren’t trolls (and merely acting consistently troll-like), replace them with those who post similar content for provocative purposes, as opposed to mere entertainment.

I’ve tried to reply to you twice. mds and the dino are the same guy. Every time I try to list at least two other names he’s commented under my comment vanishes. jesse venturas movie charactor from predator and a texas town with a history of confrontations.

I can’t imagine it pays well enough given the intellectual capacity of those I would consider trolls. You get what you pay for.
Say! That reminds me. What conservative Daddy Warbucks would pay me to troll prog sites?

My fav is Media Matters I actually made a tranny in Brooklyn raised by single mother (aren’t they all?) shake and cry (so “she”/he/it claimed) and literally announce “she”/he/it was off to “her” (LOL) “safe space”. As soon as “she” returned on another article’s comment section I hit “her”/him/it again, That enjoyment lasted for a over a month, “hit & run” was the name of the game, every time the mentally ill product of Liberalism or one of it’s pals reared it’s ugly head to comment I popped it in the mouth using one of a number of derogatory screen names referencing Moochelle I mean “Michael” Obama, it finally gave up and stopped commenting due to what it said was “stress”.

I routinely made up names of newspapers that didn’t exist and referenced articles that didn’t exist either, watching Liberals including Media Matters yellow scribblers waste their time to refute what I was posting was hilarious, glorious times they were.

Resurrected yourself post Hillbag election whipping I see old bean. Welcome to our new 2A world, where we will be going on offense for the next 4 years come January. I hope you’re ready. I know I can’t wait. National reciprocity, HPA, NFA abolished…..the list goes on and on.

9th Circuit is our friend. Following Heller, allowing restrictions (waiting periods) on “gun rights”, jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction. Not to forget, national recognition of concealed carry permits. With just these two tools, we will be able to make life so complicated that carrying (if not just simple owning) of guns will be so constrained as to make the matter a burden that people with good sense will decide it is not worth it (accept in their own enclave). “Reasonable restrictions” are also the lever we will use to overturn so-called “constitutional carry”. Supreme Court decisions that restrictions are allowed, overrule state votes to the contrary.

Laughable strategy. Sounds more like defense to me…which you have stated in the past is a losing proposition. How about your statements on the migrant demographics and libtards taking over US elections? How did that work out for you this past November, eh? Where were they? No shows? Not enough illegals, dead people and idiots voting D to win? I can’t wait to hear the excuses and the hand wringing.

We will destroy the 9th circuit over the next 4 years and run a national and statewide campaign virtually choking out the slave states. Progressive leftists are going to be howling at the moon when they see what we have in store. Buckle your seatbelt old bean….it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

Oh….and let’s not forget all the pro 2A Federal judges and Supreme Court justices we get. You have lost. Might I suggest another charity…..PETA….you would fit in well with that crowd.

Enjoy what the ‘9th Circus’ can do for you in near future. Thanks to Ms Clinton blowing an election handed to her on a silver platter, we get to replace the late Scalia with a conservative, meaning on 2S issues, SCOTUS stays deadlocked. (We can’t trust Kennedy to do the right thing.)

Your problems start when one of the very elderly Progressive justices kicks the bucket. Another conservative justice appointed (after Scalia is replaced) gives us a hard lock on the court.

There is some sincerely good news coming on actual gun safety coming soon. There will be mandatory K thru 8 instruction on what kids should do if they happen to come across an unsecured gun. {1-Stop! 2-Don’t touch it! 3-Get out of the area! 4-Tell a responsible adult!).

How can Progressives object to teaching kids not to touch a gun?

Later, we will pass legislation for basic safe gun handling for the older kids. Along the lines of how driver’s ed is done today. It will save kid’s lives. How can a Progressive object?

There are at least as many guns as people in America. With education, we will normalize guns to America. Then your job of getting rid of them gets far, far, harder. 🙂

Many “Progressives'” indeed are opposed to gun safety education, or any information presented to children that does not encourage thinking that guns are plainly evil because they exist. However, I, humble self, have always advocated for mandatory gun safety and competency training. So you have an ally in that.

As to the rest of it, Trump will not appoint sufficient federal judges to alter the 9th Circuit. As to the Supreme Court, it was your own Mr. Scalia who embedded “reasonable restrictions” into Heller. That decision, on the whole, settled the 2A argument for time to come. Not likely there will be any interest in addressing 2A again in the next twenty years, or so. Having more (in number) conservative justices is not likely to result in an aggressive move by SCOTUS to find just the right case to declare 2A absolute. Not much comfort there, eh?

You can inculcate the young ones to like guns, but overall the culture is leaning more socially aware, all the time. Doubtful you will get children trained in social justice to dump it all over some sort of Second Amendment fit. Given guns or social equality, guns will lose every time.

Those who Troll here are generally inept at it. They usually quote inaccurate or distorted information, then throw in nasty little epithets, parrot anti-gun memes we’ve heard before, and use laughable sexual innuendo and other implied insults that would be an embarrassment to a grade school kid. Basically, they’ve got lies, parrot-speak, name-calling, and nothing else. If they are getting paid, their employer is wasting hs/her money.

If 2ASux is only writing his comments to try to help POTG “sharpen the saw”, he does a good job of it in a civil manner, but knowing his agenda sort of pulls the rug out from under the endeavor for me, anyway….

The Internet is the powerhouse for Freedom of Speech. I do not think you should be too attached to the results you produce, or affected by the crackpot/hater stuff you encounter. In the end it only has the meaning you give it and a lot of it doesn’t mean anything. The rest can be very worthwhile.

Good exercise for the mind and logical faculties. TTAG can be an echo chamber, often as not, frequented by approval addicts and musterbelievers, so the chance to engage in genuine debate becomes irresistible to us mere mortals. Go for it, when the spirit takes you!

So I’ll contribute to the debate with this observation – this is an echo chamber. I doubt anyones opinion about anything will be changed here or in the comments section of any website. If you want to make a difference in the debate, get off your duff and ACT.

If you need one in your state and don’t have a CCL, get one. If you have one or don’t need one in your state, carry every day. If you have weapons, practice regularly with them and maintain them. Every time you encounter someone making a stupid anti-2A statement, challenge them and politely correct their errors in facts or logic, especially if they are family. And lastly VOTE. While it seems that good choices are limited these days bad choices abound. If all you have are two bad choices let their record on the constitution be your guide as to the lesser of the evils.

All the arm chair jawboning in the world will not change a damm thing without action. Always remember the words of Pastor Martin Niemöller.

Since the populace seems about evenly split on the subject, you seem to have your work cut out for you. But the one-at-a-time process is to be encouraged, seeing as it provides so much more time for “common sense” to prevail.

Let’s not stigmatize Mr. Brock for his mental health issues, but for the wrongness of his ideas.

And that hair, I guess!

I too have wondered about some of the way over the top comments I’ve seen. There are trolls, and then there are agents provocateur. But thankfully, there always seem to be normal folks aplenty to call out the nutcases, whether sincere or not.

The signs of an internet anti-gun cult troll:
1. [In a forum] low post count.
2. Advocates “compromise” without saying what our side gets in return.
3. Uses the jargon and buzzwords of the anti-gun cult (“gun safety”, “assault weapon”, “2nd Amendment absolutist”, etc.)
4. Demands “universal background checks”, then changes the subject when the inevitability of REGISTRATION following on their heels comes up.
5. Won’t answer simple “yes/no” questions about his positions.
6. Attacks the NRA as “extreme”.
7. Pushes the lie of police “protection” of individuals.
8. Changes the subject when the racist history of gun control comes up. If he can’t change the subject, he denies documented history without a shred of proof.
9. Defends jackbooted thugs like Lon Horiuchi.
10. Tells the lie that “Fast and Furious” was a “illegal gun tracing” program.

AHSA may be deader than Joe Biden’s last lonely brain cell, but it’s operatives live on in the internet.

Not talking second and third order influences. Talking about action, and direct result. Apparently the leaders of the colonies were skeptical of the ability of “common” people to have the power of the vote (for good reason?), and limited voting to people of means. However, they were seemingly comfortable with the idea that those “commoners” could be trusted with firearms.

Point is, voting does not result in immediate death or injury to others, whereas guns permit the “commoner” to be stupid about it, and kill innocents through negligence. Given the magnitude of instant results, which activity should have “reasonable restrictions”?

” Given the magnitude of instant results, which activity should have “reasonable restrictions”?”

Magnitude is not measured by haste. A gunshot rings out on a Southside Chicago street. The bullet strikes and innocent 3 year old girl sleeping in her bed. How does this affect Michael in GA? It doesn’t. That is a tragedy to be sure. But the Republic survives. It is up to the justice system to bring the killer to pay.
A community organizer launches his political campaign on a street in the Southside of Chicago. How does this affect Michael in GA?

“A community organizer launches his political campaign on a street in the Southside of Chicago. How does this affect Michael in GA?”

Not at all.

The bullet has an immediate effect on a particular person (or three), but the vote does not. An individual vote, anywhere, anytime, has no immediate (or even long term) effect on anyone, anywhere. A majority of individual votes must exist in order to have any impact at all, and then maybe nothing direct.

A vote is not a singular voice. It is always accompanied by hundreds of thousands or millions.
Your analogy is apple seeds to orange groves.
To be more accurate, you should compare one vote to 1/1000th of a grain of a bullet. You would still be way off, but you’d be closer.

I am not comparing bullets (frequency thereof) to ballots (frequency thereof). I am noting that a single bullet can do more harm in an instant than a single ballot can do in the same time frame. Regulation of the most damaging item should be more supportable than regulation of a single ballot.

You just had a probably “law abiding” gun owner kill a three year old in a road rage incident. How many random ballots have harmed anyone in a road rage event?

Make sure to include the entire string instead of taking it out of context.
Make sure you leave in the part where I said a single death is a tragedy.
Make sure you leave in the part where I said nobody fucking cares about your comparison of a bullet to a vote.

By capturing the entire string, all your commentary would be included.

But I like that you diverted the conversation from reasons why guns should be regulated, to a comparison of relative impacts of a single negligent shooter to an entire election scenario. Upon which you eventually abandoned the conversation with the “don’t care” attitude. All of which translate to an attitude of POTG (?): I got my gun, go f yourself.

I don’t care because your comparison albeit true is irrelevant.
I’ll play your silly ass game but it is my turn.
An abortion kills an innocent human being and makes an immediate impact where climate change occurs over centuries and may have little effect on life at all.

Another thing, I didn’t abandon anything. I made my point. You reemphasized your point. I stayed on topic and pointed out that your analogy is wrong in three different ways. Just because I move from pointing out the first flaw in your analogy to the second flaw in your analogy doesn’t mean I am dodging the issu.
Gun control is the issue. Amiright?

Not talking second and third order influences. Talking about action, and direct result. Apparently the leaders of the colonies were skeptical of the ability of “common” people to have the power of the vote (for good reason?), and limited voting to people of means. However, they were seemingly comfortable with the idea that those “commoners” could be trusted with firearms.

Point is, voting does not result in immediate death or injury to others, whereas guns permit the “commoner” to be stupid about it, and kill innocents through negligence. Given the magnitude of instant results, which activity should have “reasonable restrictions”?

I think you are making a mistake in your conclusions, about “immediate” and “delayed” consequences.
There were about 11,208 homicides by guns in 2013. That’s homicides, not criminal murders, which is a far lower number; I can’t find a breakout of murders vs homicides.
Looked at in terms of damage to society, instead of to the murdered family and loved ones (I’m not disregarding this, only showing a difference), Obama’s policies (I pick Obama because he is currently president) have hurt our society far more. Unemployment is higher, far more are on food stamps, the economy is growing after a recession at the slowest rate ever, drugs are easier to obtain, cheaper and more powerful than ever. Our society is suffering from the results of an election.
Yes, guns are a more immediate threat, but politicians hurt the society far more, with a reach far beyond the immediate death of a person.
And that’s without even mentioning that gun control simply can not stop gun violence, given that most murders by gun are caused my criminals, who, by definition, simply don’t care about laws, much less follow them.

The question was which should be regulated or restricted: gun or vote. Considering a single person (or two or three) with guns can inflict immediate, terminal results on innocent people, and a single vote (or two or three) cannot, which should be regulated or restricted.

I believe your founders had it right in the beginning – no universal suffrage (without background check?). Voting was restricted, quite wisely, to only those of means. The “common folk”, favorite of Lincoln, were hot considered educated, nor sufficiently serious enough to be trusted with affairs of government.

The fact that voting does not go your way does not validate the notion that guns should not be provided “reasonable restrictions” (Heller).

Oh, this isn’t new. Agents provocateur, and false flag operations are at least as old as recorded conflicts.

/Reference
For reference, dig into Soviet-era “active measures.”

Check out the blatant culture-forming programs in the US in the early 20th century. You don’t have to go Nazi “big lie” to find folks from that period engaged in herding the — er — herd. Because they know better, of course. (Lately some folks at the Wilson school at Princeton have looked at some of what President Wilson was about and did. One assumes this is in line with the content at that particular school of government.)

Maybe read some of Chairman Mao’s original work, or dig a tad deeper than usual into Orwell. Mao thought very deliberately about creating opinion and engagement in various constituencies. His “On Guerrilla War” is his take on what that’s for and how it works: a propaganda operation, implemented as direct action, to lead a populace by the gut reaction. (Large issues like domino theory, “winnability” and similar aside, clearly the North Vietnamese had read Mao, while the US leadership orchestrating that war had not. Consider the Bush and Obama administrations engagement in the middle east in terms of propaganda operations. For example, there’s an interesting graduate paper to be found in the Bush administration’s coinage “War on Terror”, compared with the Obama administration’s refusal to say “Islamic” and “Terrorism” together.)

Orwell’s “Why I Write” and “All Art is Propaganda” are kind of essential. His original radio scripts from when he worked as a commentator / propagandist for the empire in India in WW-II are … enlightening. He got what the Totalitarians and Soviets he burlesqued in “1984” and “Animal Farm” were up to, because he was at least as good at it as they.

There’s even recent public record of fairly inept FBI false flag operations during “the” anti-war era, meaning later 1960’s & earlier 1970’s. The statute of limitations ran out, so the folks who filched the records came forward, giving a better layer of traceability to what had before been available, but easier to dismiss as fabrication.

You could even read Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent” if you can stomach it. Like Lakoff, he seems utterly oblivious to how his own analysis applies to his own work.

Without a doubt. Paid posting, or astroturfing, is ubiquitous on Internet forums. Wherever there is an agenda to push, or public opinion that TPTB want to influence, especially on a gun related forum, this activity is present.

How can you say this that only divides people more. Many millions of Democrats own guns, conceal and carry, served in the armed forces etc. I personally know many people who lean left who own guns. My older brother promotes the second amendment above everything else. It’s unfair to paint all Democrats as anti gun. After all, there are plenty of Republicans out there who oppose guns. Again, I personally know some. I like to keep diverse body of friends. Otherwise all you talk about is the same damn thing.

Sure millions of gun owners are Democrats, which is another one of many on a long list of logic defying examples of how such a large percentage of the population who are seemingly normal and rational in their day to day life yet doggedly support and vote for a party that has shifted to the extreme or “alt” left and would “fundamentally transform” our nation to a progressive socialist state if given the chance.

Make no mistake about it, the Democrat Party is totally committed to an anti-gun agenda and we were just one Hillary nominated Supreme Court Justice away from a judicial activist reinterpretation of the 2nd amendment that would have cleared the way for Western European and Australian style gun control and bans in the U.S.

Wait a minute! Didn’t this article just answer a major issue about the gun control crew, and Liberal Progressive Democrats….
********************************************
Excerpt TTAGS:
Mr. Brock is perhaps one of the world’s biggest hypocrites when it comes to gun rights. The Daily Caller revealed in 2013 how Brock’s company paid for the purchase of firearms that one or more staff members carried illegally as a “bodyguard” for Brock. Why did the silver-haired Brock think he needed (unlawfully) armed protection? He thought that gun owners were violent and were plotting his assassination. The Daily Caller wrote about Brock’s mental health issues:

Brock, whose struggles with mental health have seen him hospitalized in the past…
********************************************
So why on gods green Earth are we even allowing these people to play politician! Let alone monkey with every US citizens constitutional rights! These people shouldn’t even be outside a secure hospital ward! Why you ask??? “BECAUSE THERE ALL F—K–G Crazy!!!!! “

The paid troll activity here would not likely be making blatant anti gun posts, but much more likely be along the lines of supporting backtound checks, supporting licensure to exercise your 2A rights, compromise, compromise, compromise, and to attack anything that goes against the official narrative(war on terror, 9/11), especially gun related topics like Sandy Hook.

Would be money poorly spent. Trying to change minds in TTAG comments is screaming into the void. I’d like to point out that arbitrary statements like “It’s likely” or “It should be considered probable” based on what amounts to anecdotal evidence simply aren’t supported by fact. When should you consider something probable? I’d venture when you have sufficient priors to estimate a probability and it turns out high, not a few anecdotes and a persecution complex. But there I go again screaming…